I do not understand why every discussion on salaries results in an inevitable comparison to doctors. Doctors are paid by the public and their pay packets are therefore depressed, much like every employee of the Great British State. The solicitors earning £150,000 are employed by private partnerships or companies that exist to make a profit and predominantly serve large financial institutions and other highly sophisticated users of legal services. You would not expect the latter to be as stingy as the former, especially when the latter has a direct, financial interest in getting high-quality legal advice in the right timeframe. A more apt comparison would be between your typical commercial lawyer and an investment banker, asset manager, consultant or accountant, all of who support and advise on the matters that a £150,000-earning NQ would work on.
Regarding retention: There is nothing to clarify. I am not "making out" anything - you are the one trying to read into my post. I am simply making the point that retention of US firm trainees is often less than 100%, especially at the larger US firms that account for the bulk of the 239 training contracts I discussed above. Additionally on rare occasions, trainees quit half-way through their training contract because of the sheer workload and pressure they are under (this would not appear in retention data as the data only considers those who applied for a job at the end of the two years).
If we are going to be playing around with the fine points, I would point out that Legal Cheek always overestimates the number of training contracts available because firms express these numbers as "up to <X>" while Legal Cheek treats them as "<X>". Additionally, people do occasionally fail the LPC or verification or quit for other reasons before starting their training contracts, so 80 acceptances may not translate into 80 trainees.